I can't Shepardize Louisiana cases but here's where I'd start.
Well, that case is not a Louisiana state case, but a federal one so if you can Shepardize federal cases, you can Shephardize this one.
You don't think a Louisiana state court would be interpreting the immunities afforded the Feds under the 1928 Flood Act, do you?
In the event, the case doesn't help claimants even if still good law as it holds that the immunity does not apply if work unrelated to flood issues is the basis of the claim. The parties stipulated that the construction of MR-GO was an aid to navigation, not flood control, so the immunity did not apply. Easy enough, and logical.
I doubt seriously that the design, construction, etc., of levees and floodwalls will be deemed not to involve flood control. The Flood Act's immunity defense is therefore very likely be upheld in any claim against the COE, IMO.
I'm not so sure that a decision along those lines would be unwise. The damages associated with floods are huge. Congress has rationally decided that the public fisc should not respond to them in the form of damages, especially as there are other sources of federal funds which are not predicated on a finding of fault. I've got no problem with that; it's logical and reasonable even though it hurts. |
